- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12794-DB WA No. 1305 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 1305 OF 2022 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA R S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT GUNJURU PALYA VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GIRISH T.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 009. Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12794-DB WA No. 1305 of 2022 3. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.H.DEVARAJ, HCGP) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/11/2022 IN WP NO.14790/2021, AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED BY THE APPELLANT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This Intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.14790/2021 (KLR-LG) by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The abridged facts apposite for consideration as borne out from the pleadings are as follows: The appellant was the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.12/7 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas of Chikkabellandur - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12794-DB WA No. 1305 of 2022 Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. Abutting to this land was ‘B’ kharab land (Hallada Jameenu) measuring 12 guntas on the eastern and northern portion. The said kharab land lost its character and was not required either by general public or by owners of adjoining lands. As such, the appellant herein submitted a representation on 25.11.2014 to the District Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District to grant the said land in his favour by imposing necessary Government fee/penalty. 3. The said proposal was directed to the Tahsildar by the District Commissioner to conduct enquiry and submit the report. Accordingly, the Tahsildar filed a report dated 09.04.2015 after conducting a spot inspection and on preparing a survey sketch of the said land, by observing that the said kharab land had lost its character, unfit for cultivation and was passing through the land which was converted for residential purpose. As such, after calling objections from the general public, in the event there being no objections raised by any individuals, by imposing value as per rule the land can be granted to the appellant. Based on such a report, the Assistant Commissioner forwarded a report to the District Commissioner dated 30.09.2015 observing similarly that the land could be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12794-DB WA No. 1305 of 2022 granted to the appellant after imposing Government fee/penalty and on obtaining necessary report from the Minor Irrigation Department regarding the water flowing through the said land into the Minor Irrigation Lake. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer of Minor Irrigation submitted a report stating that the canal had currently lost its existence and the water of the said area was no longer flowing into the Minor Irrigation Lake. Based on all these reports, the District Commissioner in-turn forwarded the report to the Principal Secretary of Revenue Department i.e., respondent No.1 by reiterating the observation made by respondents No.2 and 3 that, after issuing publication in the State Gazette under Section 68(1) and 68(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLR Act') and also calling for objections from public by imposing value as per rule the land could be granted to the appellant. However, respondent No.1 on comprehensive perusal of the reports directed the District Commissioner i.e., respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.06.2017 that there is no provision provided under the KLR Act to grant the aforesaid land in favour of the appellant and accordingly, discharged the same from public interest and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12794-DB WA No. 1305 of 2022 directed to take possession of the land. Finally, on 07.04.2018 respondent No.1 once again directed to take possession of the said land by way of reminder. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on assessment of the reports produced by the authorities and on perusing the provisions of the KLR Act, dismissed the writ petition. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 4. We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri. Vikram A. Huilgol for the appellant and the learned HCGP Sri. C.H.Devaraj for the respondents-State. 5. The primary contention of the learned senior counsel is that the learned Single Judge erred while dismissing the writ petition on accepting the contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that under Sections 69 and 69A of the KLR Act, the Government and its officials have power to dispose off the ‘land locked Government kharab land by public auction’. According to the learned senior counsel, if that were be so, the order passed by respondent No.1 is liable to be quashed. He further contended that, based on the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12794-DB WA No. 1305 of 2022 direction of the respondent No.2, the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Executive Engineer of Minor Irrigation submitted a report stating that the land in question had lost its character and the same can be granted to the appellant by imposing necessary penalty and by complying with necessary provisions under Sections 69 and 69A of the KLR Act. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that, apparently the subject land is classified as ‘B’ kharab/Hallada Jameenu, and the same belonged to the Government. If the Government is the owner of the land, the total discretion vests on it either to grant or to retain the same. Though the Government is empowered to grant under Sections 69 and 69A of the KLR Act, however, the same is not mandatory but a discretionary power of the Government. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge and respondent No.1 rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have given our anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12794-DB WA No. 1305 of 2022 parties and have perused the documents collectively placed before us. 8. As could be gathered from the records, the subject land is classified as ‘B’ kharab/Hallada Jameenu. However, based on an application by the appellant for grant of the same, being the adjacent land owner, the District Commissioner obtained necessary reports from the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Executive Engineer of Minor Irrigation. These reports collectively depict that the land had lost its character and the water of the said area no longer flows into the Minor Irrigation Lake through the said land. Albeit the learned senior counsel for the appellant was right in contending that, the Government is empowered to dispose off the said land under Sections 69 and 69A of the KLR Act, however, the said discretion wholly vests with the Government. Against this backdrop, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. During the course of argument, it was brought to our knowledge by the learned HCGP that the Government of Karnataka had issued a Notification dated 15.12.2020 published - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12794-DB WA No. 1305 of 2022 in the State Gazette by incorporating necessary amendment to Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1964 by amending Rule 22A by reckoning the market rate/guidelines value while granting and leasing the Government lands as per Rules 19 to 22 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1964 by exercising power conferred under Sections 69 and 69A r/w Sub-Section 1 of Section 197 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 10. If that be so, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appellant is permitted to re-approach the concerned authorities for grant of subject land as per law. With these liberties, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Pending Interlocutory Application[s], if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4